From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29722 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2004 05:59:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29660 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 05:59:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 05:59:04 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 5750147DA0; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:59:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips Message-ID: <20041111055903.GX649@gnat.com> References: <01c4c618$Blat.v2.2.2$0b838560@zahav.net.il> <4190E1F8.7000203@gnu.org> <20041109184221.GB13359@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> <200411102142.iAALgEPM095582@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <01c4c77c$Blat.v2.2.2$a7e52160@zahav.net.il> <20041110234143.GA32661@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c780$Blat.v2.2.2$bbe98080@zahav.net.il> <20041111053707.GA9394@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041111053707.GA9394@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 > > Then let's abandon the patch reviewing procedure completely and just > > commit whatever each one of us global maintainers finds appropriate. > > There are projects that actually work that way (Emacs, for example). > > I have no problem with that, as long as it is consistent and > > documented. FWIW, I am in favor of such an approach. At AdaCore, this is pretty much how we work, and we have found that it works very well. The review happens after commit. Some times we screw up, and we have to either fix the screwup or revert, but most of the time the change is correct. All in all, we save a lot of time this way. The part that we realize is that with such a model, being questioned on a patch and maybe having to revert it is considered normal. So we don't take any offense at such comments, and don't consider this as a judgement of our abilities. We also rely on the engineers' judgement to call for a review before commit when this make sense. For instance, when a change is trickier than usual, or he's unsure of his fix, or when something needs a design that could benefit from peers' feedback, or when something impacts a lot of code, etc. But all in all, it is largely more effective for us to commit and then review. > I've suggested something along those lines (not "abandoning patch > reviewing", but giving more authority to the global maintainers) > several times in the past, and met with mixed responses. I hope to > eventually discuss this question with the GDB Steering Committee, and > get the result documented, one way or another. -- Joel